Okay, my dear friend let me refute your amusing answers.
1. You have no evidence. I have the book "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything"
2. You have no evidence. I have the book "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything"
3. I never said it was in the Quran, did I?
4. What evidence do you have to support this? And that is just your interpretation.
5. What evidence do you have to support your belief?
6. Newsflash: If you translate almost any poetic piece that may or may not rhyme(do tell me if the Quran does), your result is obviously less than the original, but not by much.
7. No, he wouldn't, because the book was made after his death, and some other people may have put it into the Quran, as demonstrated by the cited fact that over half the material was rejected.
8. Circumcising children fits the textbook definition of mutilation, so yes, it is.
9. No, it is not, since it was made after the illiterate person's death, out of assorted things.
10. Some people?! Those were CROWDS!
1. You have no evidence. I have the book "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything"
2. You have no evidence. I have the book "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything"
3. I never said it was in the Quran, did I?
4. What evidence do you have to support this? And that is just your interpretation.
5. What evidence do you have to support your belief?
6. Newsflash: If you translate almost any poetic piece that may or may not rhyme(do tell me if the Quran does), your result is obviously less than the original, but not by much.
7. No, he wouldn't, because the book was made after his death, and some other people may have put it into the Quran, as demonstrated by the cited fact that over half the material was rejected.
8. Circumcising children fits the textbook definition of mutilation, so yes, it is.
9. No, it is not, since it was made after the illiterate person's death, out of assorted things.
10. Some people?! Those were CROWDS!
